Effect of enabling and coercive bureaucracies and of perceived organizational support during the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave the profession

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of enabling and coercive bureaucracies of the government education authority (GEA), and perceived organizational support during the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave the profession in Israel. Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of 267 Israeli public school teachers (80% women). I used a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the differential effects of GEA and school-level factors on teachers’ intention to leave the profession, and explored a path model in which school-level factors mediated the effects of GEA. The results indicated that the enabling GEA bureaucratic structure and perceived organizational support during the pandemic negatively predicted teachers’ inclination to leave, whereas its coercive bureaucratic structure positively predicted teachers’ inclination to leave. In addition, the analyses showed that perceived organizational support during the pandemic had the greatest influence on intention to leave, and that the extent of this influence cancelled out and overcame the negative effect of the coercive bureaucratic structure of GEA. Furthermore, the path model indicated that perceived organizational support partially mediated the effects of GEA on teachers’ inclination to leave.

KEYWORDS:

• Coercive bureaucracy
• enabling bureaucracy
• intention to leave
• perceived organizational support
• teachers

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted many education systems to move to a distance learning model, adopt a hybrid operating model, or cope with the implications of face-to-face teaching during the pandemic (OECD, 2021; Weiner et al., 2021). The strenuous social and work atmosphere eroded employees’ resources and activated some workers’ intentions to seek a new job (Johnston, 2021; Linzer et al., 2022). Employees leaving the job (employee turnover) is defined as ‘departure of an employee from the formally defined organization’ (Hancock et al., 2013, p. 576). The widespread phenomenon of employees leaving their jobs after the pandemic affected not only teachers, but also nurses, social workers, and other employees, and it has been referred to as ‘the great resignation’ (Linzer et al., 2022). In the aftermath of this chaotic period, I examined the role that government and school-level factors have played in teachers’ intentions to leave the workplace. Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine the effects of facilitative and coercive GEA (government education authority) bureaucracy and of perceived organizational support at the school level during the pandemic.

Bureaucracy (i.e. the hierarchical organization that coordinates work to promote large tasks and goals; see Max Weber in Fairclough, 2013, p. 175) is a fundamental aspect of state public education, for better or worse (Berkovich, 2021). At present, many countries still maintain high bureaucratic control in public education. For example, Kim and Yun’s (2019) cross-country comparative analysis of the OECD TALIS international teachers survey data identified high levels of top-down control in areas of assessment, human resources, curriculum, and budget (above the median of the overall score) in Cyprus, Japan, Brazil, Canada, France, Singapore, Israel, the US, France, and Norway. Despite interest in the teachers’ experience of government bureaucracy, educational research explored mostly its negative coercive side (i.e. bureaucracy based on direct control; see Hodson et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2012), overlooking its enabling side (i.e. bureaucracy based on flexibility and transparency; see Hodson et al., 2013). The pandemic period was similar to reform periods, in which the government was proactive and conspicuous (Constantia et al., 2021); therefore, it serves as an ideal reference point for teachers to reflect on the experience of government bureaucracy. Regarding government influence, the literature points to the contradictory power of school and, in particular, of perceived organizational support, which is the employees’ sense that the organization values their work and wants to promote their wellbeing (Sumathi et al., 2015). We know that the supportive behaviour of school leaders is an important factor influencing teachers’ intentions in both routine and crisis times (Johnston, 2021; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009; Shapira‐lischshinsky, 2009).

These topics of government bureaucracy and school support are particularly relevant to many countries, including those in the Nordic region, as countries routinely experience changes in the scope of top-down control of education. For example, Norway, mentioned above as high on the list of top-down control countries, has strengthened coercive elements by adopting a test-based accountability system two decades ago, in response to PISA (Lennert Da Silva, 2022). In time, even countries with lower top-down control have undergone key changes related to state bureaucracy and autonomy at the school level. For example, Sweden, which has a largely decentralized school system, adopted the School Inspectorate in 2008, allowing the government to audit and monitor schools, and in 2010, the Education Act stressed the role and responsibility of the school principal (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020). These examples from the Nordic region indicate that the distribution of control and responsibility in education systems often shifts over time, therefore the aspects at the heart of this study have broad relevance to many countries.

This study examined the effects of enabling and coercive GEA bureaucracy (in Israel, specifically, of the Ministry of Education) and of perceived organizational support during the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave. The investigation was conducted in Israel a country with a wide and centralized public system, in which the GEA is powerful and influential (Berkovich, 2019; Gibton, 2011; Nir, 2012). The research was designed to investigate the differential effects of GEA-level and school-level predictors on teachers’ intentions to leave the profession, as well as to test a mediating model, in which perceived organizational support mediated the effects of GEA on teachers’ inclination to leave. The explanation of this mediation model lies in the organizational theory of turnover proposing that teachers’ working conditions affect how they view their careers and shape their intentions to quit the job (Grant et al., 2019).

In doing so, the present study contributes to the educational literature, which to date has focused almost exclusively on exploring enabling and coercive bureaucracies in the context of principal-teacher relations (e.g. Hoy & Sweetland, 2000; Oldac & Kondakci, 2020). By contrast, the present work expands the knowledge into government-teacher relations. The study also contributes to the general organizational literature, which to date explored organizational structure as a moderating context for effects on perceived organizational support (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003) and not as a co-contextual factor or its cause.

Review of literature

Enabling and coercive bureaucracy

Bureaucracy has been defined as ‘a hierarchical organization designed rationally to coordinate the work of many individuals in the pursuit of large-scale administrative tasks and organizational goals’ (Max Weber in Fairclough, 2013, p. 175). Bureaucracy is a central theme in understanding the effectiveness of organizations and systems in general, as well as in education (Berkovich, 2021; Hodson et al., 2013; Mitchell, 2020). The literature distinguishes between two types of bureaucracy: coercive and enabling (Adler & Borys, 1996; Doornich et al., 2019; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000; Wohlgezogen et al., 2021). The coercive bureaucracy model in organizations aims to promote employees’ compliance behaviours with formalized rules and procedures serving as the basis for disciplinary action in the event of deviations (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). Coercive rules and procedures are dominant, and bureaucratic measures that encourage or support productive practices remain marginal or absent (Adler & Borys, 1996). Coercive bureaucracy underscores the idea that any organization is fundamentally constraining because its operation involves limiting individuals’ autonomy (Adler & Borys, 1996).

Organizational systems based on coercive bureaucracy are seen as hindering their own effectiveness (Doornich et al., 2019; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). The negative externalities of this model are that it discourages organization members from questioning rules and procedures and contributing ideas for possible improvements (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). Such coercive bureaucratic systems limit innovation because employees have little motivation to contribute to the complex, non-routine tasks that constitute novelty (Adler & Borys, 1996). Moreover, coercive bureaucratic systems limit autonomy and judgement and reduce experiential learning opportunities for employees in ways that can lead to deskilling in the long term (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). This can lead to employees feeling disengaged from work, which reduces active behavioural engagement (Wohlgezogen et al., 2021). Thus, coercive bureaucracy leads to alienation rather than commitment.

In contrast to coercive bureaucracy, we can also find manifestations of enabling bureaucracy (Doornich et al., 2019; Tsang et al., 2022), a hierarchical, formalized structure that helps subordinates do their jobs and, in particular, aligns the goals of the organization with those of the employees (Adler & Borys, 1996; Mitchell, 2020; Oldac & Kondakci, 2020). When this alignment exists, routine procedures and individual autonomy are experienced as complementary rather than contradictory (Adler & Borys, 1996; Tsang et al., 2022). Scholars argue that enabling rules and procedures help employees develop mental models of the organization that allow them to formulate and evaluate suggestions for improving the system (Adler & Borys, 1996; Mitchell, 2020). Enabling bureaucratic formalization, therefore, is intended to facilitate employees’ ability to develop their skills and better understand the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of work (Adler & Borys, 1996; Hoy & Sweetland, 2000).

The enabling bureaucracy model expresses competence-based trust in employees, as it recognizes and values the expertise of members of the organization (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). It encourages employees to actively participate in collaborative opportunities because they can expect their contributions to be received favourably (Wohlgezogen et al., 2021). Thus, the basic assumption of the model is that the organization is a place where independent efforts are cooperative and organized, rather than a place where individual autonomy is a threat to organizational operations (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). This idea has some empirical support. Previous studies have shown that enabling formalization reduces role conflict and role ambiguity, increases job satisfaction, reduces feelings of alienation and stress (Adler & Borys, 1996), and promotes desired organizational outcomes (Wohlgezogen et al., 2021).

Classic writing on coercive and enabling bureaucracies described the two opposite models as unable to coexist in one organizational reality (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000). Recent evidence, however, suggests that in some circumstances the two models can coexist. For example, empirical works using the scale developed by Hoy and Sweetland (2000, 2001) to assess enabling and coercive structures dispute the existence of bipolar organizational bureaucracy in schools and indicated the coexistence of two separate forms (Lennon, 2010). Moreover, Janka’s (2021) meta-synthesis based on 34 case studies in the accounting and management literature suggests the existence of a temporary situation in which enabling and coercive bureaucracies operate side by side. In the educational domain, such a situation can emerge at times of dramatic change (e.g. reforms) or crisis (e.g. the pandemic).

In the educational literature, some attention has been paid to the bureaucratic structure of schools, specifically public schools (e.g. McVey, 2009)‏. Hoy and Sweetland (2000) argued that to be competitive and successful, effective 21st-century organizations, particularly schools, must have an enabling bureaucratic structure. Previous research has found that some bureaucratic rules in schools can help solve problems and reduce teachers’ feelings of helplessness (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000; Mitchell, 2020). Most previous studies on enabling and coercive bureaucracy have focused on the interface between principals and teachers. But it is also possible to focus on state bureaucracy, which is the largest bureaucratic unit of reference. Our knowledge of governmental enabling and coercive bureaucracies, and their effect on education during the pandemic is limited.

Perceived organizational support

Perceived organizational support is defined as ‘the extent to which employees believe that their organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being’ (Sumathi et al., 2015, p. 266). When employees perceive that they are valued and supported by their organization, they believe in the values of the organization and try to do their best at work for its success (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Le & Lei, 2019; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). Evidence suggests that employees who feel they are treated fairly have more positive attitudes towards work and perform better at work (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Purposeful and meaningful organizational support has been shown to promote social integration and trust between employees, and increase employees’ creativity and interest in their work (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Le & Lei, 2019). Therefore, perceived organizational support is considered a critical factor in creating a supportive organizational climate and providing adequate motivation for knowledge-sharing activities (Eisenberger et al., 2020; Le & Lei, 2019). It is no wonder that perceived organizational support promotes organizational effectiveness as employees are more committed to achieving organizational goals (Ahmed & Nawaz, 2015; Bogler & Nir, 2012; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012).

The general organizational literature has suggested that organizational structure moderates the effects of structure on perceived organizational support (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003), but did not acknowledge that perceived organizational support can serve as a possible mediator of the effects of organizational structure. For instance, communication from managers can increase perceived organizational support. Managers can describe work goals and strategies and provide timely information that helps employees get their work done (Allen, 1992, 1995; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). Specifically, positive work-related feedback and conversations about support are positively related to perceived organizational support (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). Such open two-way communication between management and employees can reduce employees’ fears and uncertainties about change and promote the emergence of innovative ideas (Allen, 1992, 1995; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012). High-level managers formulate policies and goals and are viewed by lower-level employees as representatives of the organization (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012).

Perceived organizational support in schools has been studied in educational research (Bibi et al., 2019; Farooqi et al., 2019). It has been found that teachers who believe that their school is committed to them and works voluntarily on their behalf felt higher levels of organizational commitment, empowerment, and job satisfaction (Bibi et al., 2019; Bogler & Nir, 2012). Moreover, it has been shown that perceived organizational support is a significant factor influencing in-role and extra-role performance as well as organizational outcomes (Bogler & Nir, 2012).

Intention to leave

Intention to leave has been defined as an individual’s subjective assessment of the likelihood of leaving the organization in the near future (Lee et al., 2019; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). It is the final part of a sequence in the process of cognitive withdrawal from the organization, which includes thoughts of quitting and seeking a new job elsewhere (Cho et al., 2009; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). The intention to leave is seen as a conscious and deliberate desire to leave the organization. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of reversal, it does always result in the employees leaving the organization; they may remain at work despite low job satisfaction, but decide to invest less in the organization and it’s future (Qadach et al., 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). Thus, these employees’ performance is expected to drop, and their lower commitment may affect also the motivation and effort of their colleagues (Qadach et al., 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009).

The intention to leave may evolve into actual leaving, causing difficulties in filling positions and, in the case of more skilled employees, harming the success and reputation of the organization (Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). Factors associated with the employees’ intention to leave in the literature include high job stress, negative workplace climate, low quality of work relationships with colleagues and administrators, poor pay and benefits, lack of promotion opportunities, negative managerial style, low supervisor support, limited professional autonomy, and low job satisfaction (Grant et al., 2019; Hale-Jinks et al., 2006; Qadach et al., 2020; Nowrouzi-Kia & Fox, 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009; You & Conley, 2015). Previous work has shown that organizational support reduces the intention to leave (Cho et al., 2009; Ford et al., 2019).

In education, teachers’ intention to leave is seen as a key concern, as education systems are trying to secure and retain a skilled workforce (Schechter & Qadach, 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). The literature suggests that when a teacher leaves it demoralizes the remaining staff and causes students to feel insecure, therefore it harms students’ academic and non-academic development (Hale-Jinks et al., 2006). Curbing teachers’ intention to leave has thus become the main goal of education policymakers and administrators (Qadach et al., 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009). Teacher turnover creates both organizational and financial burdens related to temporary arrangements (e.g. school schedule in disarray, increased workload on remaining teachers) and new personnel requirements and socialization. It also increases the likelihood of school dysfunction and low effectiveness (Hale-Jinks et al., 2006). Teacher attrition is not a random phenomenon, and it often occurs in high-risk schools, which are the most challenging teaching environments (Qadach et al., 2020). The literature suggests that teachers are less likely to leave the profession if they have a principal who has created a supportive environment that helps them realize their potential as teachers (Ford et al., 2019; Qadach et al., 2020; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Rosenblatt, 2009; Toprak et al., 2021). Other works further suggest that administrative support cultivates a sense of belonging and reduces negative work-related emotions such as stress, anxiety, and hostility (Hale-Jinks et al., 2006). I propose the following hypotheses:

H1.

The enabling bureaucratic structure of the GEA during the pandemic is negatively related to teachers’ intention to leave.

H2.

The coercive bureaucratic structure of the GEA during the pandemic is positively related to teachers’ intention to leave.

H3.

Perceived organizational support at the school during the pandemic is negatively related to teachers’ intention to leave.

H4.

Perceived organizational support at the school during the pandemic mediates the effects of the bureaucratic structure of the GEA on teachers’ intention to leave.

Method

Context

Israel has a wide public national education system with about 80% of schools belonging to it (Berkovich, 2019). Historically, the Israeli public education system has been highly centralized, with strong GEA control in curriculum, funding, enrolment, personnel, and evaluation (Berkovich, 2019; Gibton, 2011; Nir, 2012). Although in the late 20th century and more rapidly from the start of the millennium, the system has become increasingly decentralized, both formally and informally (Berkovich, 2019; Gibton, 2011), it remains strongly centralized and under the control of the Ministry of Education (Nir, 2020). This makes Israel a particularly instructive setting for exploring the effects of enabling and coercive bureaucracies of the GEA.

Sample and procedure

The population of the study consisted of school teachers working in the Israeli public education system. I conducted an online survey of public school teachers in Israel. The study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB). A total of 267 teachers participated in the study, almost 80% of whom were women. Participants were of middle age (M = 43.9, SD = 8.4). Fifteen percent of participating teachers had 4–6 years of seniority, 15% had 7–9 years, 26% had 10–14 years, 16% had 15–19 years, 19% had 20–29 years, and 9% had over three decades of seniority. Nearly half the sample had a master’s degree (40%), about one-third had a bachelor’s degree (35%), and the remainder had only a teaching degree. The sample has similar characteristics to the population. According to Ministry of Education data from 2020, 58% of the public school teachers in Israel have experience of over 10 years, and 52% have a BA degree, and 39% have a MA degree. Two-thirds of the sample participants (65.5%) had worked with the current principal for 1–6 years, about one-third (28.3%) for 7–14 years, and the rest for over 15 years.

Measures

Enabling bureaucratic structure and coercive bureaucratic structure. The scale developed by Hoy and Sweetland (2000, 2001) to assess enabling and coercive structures in schools was adapted for the present study. The 12 items in the questionnaire were redesigned, and references to the school level were replaced with references to the GEA level and statements related to the pandemic period. For example, the item ‘The administrators in this school use their authority to enable teachers to do their job’ was changed to ‘During the COVID pandemic, the leaders of the Ministry used their authority to enable teachers to do their job’. Because the study was also interested in exploring coercive bureaucratic structure, items that are usually reversed in coding (e.g. ‘During the COVID pandemic, administrative rules of the Ministry were substitutes for professional judgement’) were not reversed. See the Appendix for the full list of items. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of the enabling bureaucratic structure scale was .86 and of the coercive bureaucratic structure scale .79.

Perceived organizational support. The survey used the 8-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986). This scale assesses employees’ beliefs about the ‘extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being’ (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Examples of questions include: ‘Help is available from the school when I have a problem’ and ‘The school really cares about my wellbeing’. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .86.

Intention to leave. The study used the Walsh et al. (1985) scale, which assesses employees’ intention to leave the workplace. Sample item: ‘I often think about quitting my school’. Respondents were asked to mark their agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability coefficient of the measure used was .93.

Control variables. The control variables were teacher seniority (years), gender (1 - male, 2 - female), education (1 - Certificate, 2 - BA/BEd, 3 - MA/MEd), and age (years).

Data analysis

In the first stage, I calculated the means, standard deviations, and associations. In the second stage, I conducted a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to fully assess both the types of GEA bureaucratic structure and organizational support capabilities in predicting teachers’ intention to leave (i.e. H1, H2, and H3). This made it possible to examine the unique contribution of each predictor over and above the control variables. In the regression analyses, I entered variables in three steps: step 1 – control variables (seniority, gender, education, and age); step 2 – I added the two types of GEA bureaucratic structure (enabling, coercive) to the control variables; and step 3 – I added perceived organizational support to the two types of GEA bureaucratic structure and the control variables. In the third step, I explored a mediation model in which perceived organizational support mediated the effects of the two types of GEA bureaucratic structure (i.e. H4). I used the AMOS structural equation modelling (SEM) software for the path analysis. To evaluate how well the model fits the data, I used several fit indices: the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; >.95 good fit), the goodness of fit index (GFI; >.95 good fit), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; <.05 good fit; .05<RMSEA<.08 reasonable fit), and the chi-square to df ratio (χ2/df < 2 good fit) (Byrne, 2016).

Results

Examination of the descriptive information in Table 1 leads to several observations. One is that the GEA bureaucracy was generally considered a moderate problem (slightly below the midpoint of the 5-point scale), but that the teachers in the sample rated the coercive bureaucratic structure of the GEA (M = 2.92) higher than its enabling bureaucratic structure (M = 2.76). Moreover, the data reflect that teachers reported high levels of perceived organizational support at school (M = 3.46). The correlations provide initial support for the hypotheses, as negative associations were found between the enabling bureaucratic structure of the GEA during the pandemic and perceived organizational support and teachers’ intention to leave (r = −.236 and r = −.389, respectively). In addition, a positive relationship was found between the coercive bureaucratic structure of the GEA during the pandemic and teachers’ intention to leave (r = .282).

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Enabling bureaucratic structure	2.7609	.77876	1
2. Coercive bureaucratic structure	2.9263	.75107	−.100	1
3. Perceived organizational support in the school	3.4640	.86700	.170**	−.298**	1
4. Teacher’s intention to leave	2.8584	1.22500	−.236**	.282**	−.389**	1
5. Teacher’s seniority (years)	4.34	1.527	.066	−.115	−.042	−.044	1
6. Teacher’s gender (2-female, 1-male)	1.78	.413	−.117	.017	−.056	.055	.052	1
7. Teacher’s education (1-certificate, 2- BA/BEd, 3-MA/MEd)	2.21	.772	−.147*	−.047	−.013	.096	.208**	.052	1
8. Teacher’s age (years)	43.92	8.476	.128*	−.220**	.037	−.045	.604**	−.102	.125*

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 2 provides a summary of the results. Results from Step 1 showed that none of the demographic and personal controls significantly predicted teachers’ intention to leave, F(4, 251) = 1.142, p > .05. In Step 2, both coercive bureaucratic structure (β = .279, p < .001) and enabling bureaucratic structure (β = - .208, p < .001) significantly accounted for the variance in teachers’ intention to leave, F(4, 336) = 26.57, p < .001. In Step 3, perceived organizational support (β = −.307, p < .001) explained additional variance in teachers’ intention to leave, F(1, 248) = 26.559, p < .001. Coercive bureaucratic structure, β = .190, p < .01, and enabling bureaucratic structure, β = −.164, p < .01, remained significant predictors. Thus, hypotheses 1–3 were confirmed.

Table 2. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting teachers’ intention to leave.

	Standardized Coefficients (Beta)	t	Sig.
Step 1
Teacher’s seniority	−.068	−.850	.396
Teacher’s gender	.038	.597	.551
Teacher’s education	.111	1.735	.084
Teacher’s age	−.025	−.313	.754
R^2 (.018, p > .05)
Step 2
Teacher’s seniority	−.070	−.926	.355
Teacher’s gender	.012	.193	.847
Teacher’s education	.085	1.389	.166
Teacher’s age	.060	.782	.435
Enabling bureaucratic structure	−.208	−3.433	.001
Coercive bureaucratic structure	.279	4.632	.000
R^2 (.141, p < .001); ∆R^2 (.123, p < .001)
Step 3
Teacher’s seniority	−.098	−1.350	.178
Teacher’s gender	.003	.055	.956
Teacher’s education	.088	1.521	.130
Teacher’s age	.065	.896	.371
Enabling bureaucratic structure	−.164	−2.812	.005
Coercive bureaucratic structure	.190	3.163	.002
Perceived organizational support in the school	−.307	−5.154	.000
R^2 (.224, p < .001); ∆R^2 (.083, p < .001)

We also explored an alternative path model that specified mediation of the effects of the two types of GEA bureaucratic structure by perceived organizational support. This path model showed an overall reasonable fit to the data (χ2/df = 2.67, TLI =.95, GFI =.99, RMSEA =.07) (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, all paths were significant. Thus, perceived organizational support appeared to partially mediate the effect of coercive GEA bureaucratic structure (standardized indirect effect of .088) and enabling GEA bureaucratic structure (standardized indirect effect of −.044) on teachers’ intention to leave. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was confirmed.

Figure 1. Standardized results of the path model. All results are significant at the .05 level.

Discussion

The present study examined the effects of the type of GEA bureaucratic structure and of perceived organizational support during the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave. The inquiry was situated in Israel, a nation with a sizable and centralized public system, where GEA has significant power (Berkovich, 2019). These top-down bureaucratic aspects intensified at the time of the pandemic. In Cyprus, for example, Constantia et al. (2021) reported that ‘the principal’s position has become too bureaucratic, as it has to deal with the Ministry of Education circulars, health protocols, and regulations’ (p. 3). Some argued that certain types of top-down control may have mobilized proactive rather than reactive teacher behaviour during the pandemic (Malandrino & Sager, 2021). The pandemic was a serious turmoil, forcing many schools to shift from the traditional face-to-face instructional model to the remote online model, forcing schools that offered face-to-face instruction to address the health regulations and implications of the pandemic (OECD, 2021; Weiner et al., 2021). This crisis meant that teachers, as government officials at the street level, had a heavy burden to provide practical and psychological support that the government could not fully provide (Davidovitz et al., 2021). Not surprisingly, this difficult situation caused many workers, including teachers, to seriously reconsider their career choices (Johnston, 2021; Linzer et al., 2022) and triggered ‘the great resignation’ (Linzer et al., 2022). At the same time, we know that some school-level support during the pandemic was a key factor in helping teachers reduce their intention to leave (Johnston, 2021).

This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, the study was the first to conceptualize and empirically examine the two types of GEA bureaucratic structure: enabling and coercive. The duality of bureaucratic structure has been noted and studied before at the school unit level (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000), but the effect of GEA bureaucratic structure on teachers has scarcely been explored. That is not to say that the bureaucratic aspects of GEA had not been addressed, but they were not part of the enabling and coercive bureaucratic structure conceptualization, and investigations focused mainly on a few coercive aspects (e.g. Montgomery, 2012). Scholarship that disregards the duality of the bureaucratic structure leads to a misrepresentation of the bureaucracy as inherently counter-professional, counter-innovative, and counter-discretionary for workers in the field. Nevertheless, the duality argument regarding GEA control is not new. It is referenced in works on loose or tight coupling of government agencies in education, in which bureaucracy plays a central role (Bush, 2017). The present work could therefore be regarded as an extension of scholarship on loose or tight coupling, linking it to scholarship on the bureaucratic structure of GEA. Descriptive writing on educational policy has addressed this duality. For example, in the Nordic region, scholars have described how Sweden adopted the School Inspectorate in 2008, which allowed the government to audit and oversee schools. This was followed, in 2010, by the Education Act, which emphasized the role and autonomy of the school principal (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020). Such cases illustrate the inherent contraindication in state bureaucratic control, which is marginalized in the scholarly discussion of bureaucratic structure. Moreover, this work is the first to consider GEA bureaucratic structure during the pandemic as an important explanatory factor for post-pandemic personnel consequences. The results of the study suggest that both types of bureaucratic structure explain an important part of the variance in teachers’ intention to leave. The findings add to the limited knowledge base about the aftermath of the pandemic on teachers’ intention to leave. The current scholarship primarily cites several personal aspects that increase the likelihood of teachers considering leaving the profession. For example, Zamarro et al. (2022) mentioned teachers’ age (55 years or older), changing teaching styles, health concerns, and burnout as factors that predict their intention to leave the profession. This close focus on the individual level ignores the fact that public schools are ‘domesticated’ service organizations operating in a government environment that strongly controls their inputs, processes, and outcomes (Carlson, 1964).

Second, the findings demonstrate the stabilizing effect of organizational support in times of crisis. This confirms findings from qualitative studies on school principals worldwide (e.g. Norway, New Zealand, Chile) showing that effective principals made an effort to provide staff with task-focused and psychological support during school closures and the shift to remote learning at the time of the pandemic (Lien et al., 2022; López et al., 2022; Thornton, 2021). The study supports the findings of other works on service workers (e.g. healthcare workers and hospitality workers) during the pandemic, showing that perceived organizational support promoted workers’ wellbeing and engagement at work (Chatzittofis et al., 2021; Chen & Eyoun, 2021). In a study conducted in a similar health crisis (SARS), researchers reported that perceived organizational support was negatively related to stress and burnout in nurses (Marjanovic et al., 2007). Therefore, it is likely that emotional resources are a key mechanism by which organizational support realizes its effect on individuals. This is consistent with the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014). COR argues that stress is viewed primarily as a product of environmental, social, and cultural aspects rather than individual ones because it is associated with the acquisition and protection of resources that ensure people’s wellbeing (Benoliel & Barth, 2017; Somech, 2016). The findings also expand knowledge about the relationship between bureaucracy and organizational support, as they explored a mediation model. The path model results support the mediation hypothesis. The results suggest that perceived organizational support can mediate the effects of GEA bureaucracy. This is consistent with the organizational theory of turnover, suggesting that teachers’ working conditions affect how they perceive their jobs and thus shape their intent to leave (Grant et al., 2019). This key insight highlights the importance of the small unit dynamic (the person next to you) in times of crisis as carrying part of the influence exerted by larger structural and systemic factors on intent to leave. This innovation extends beyond education, as to date organizational structure was suggested in organizational scholarship exclusively as a moderator of the effects of perceived organizational support (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Organizational leadership and the staff’s relationship with leadership are central to providing a sense of organizational support (Wayne et al., 1997). Organizational support is said to initiate a social exchange process in which employees offer their gratitude for the support in mutual bonding by becoming emotionally involved and acting on behalf of the organization (Wayne et al., 1997). This is likely to explain why organizational support reduces teachers’ intention to leave.

Limitations and future research

The study has several limitations. First, it is based on a cross-sectional survey, which eliminates the possibility of drawing strong causal inferences. Additional support for the findings could be obtained by replicating the study in a longitudinal design. Second, the characteristics of Israeli public education, i.e. a centralized structure of educational bureaucracy and a strong GEA, have likely affected the findings. In other countries with low government control of education, it is likely that enabling and coercive bureaucratic structures produce different associations. Thus, I recommend replicating the study in other countries. Finally, the study explored only teachers’ intention to leave, not their actual leaving. Follow-up studies that use administrative data can greatly help promote the understanding of the wider practical validity of the results.

Practical implications

The study has several promising real-world implications, foremost for countries with centralized educational public systems or systems with strong GEA control, like Cyprus, Japan, Brazil, Canada, France, Singapore, the US, France, and Norway (see Kim & Yun, 2019). The implications have even wider relevance, considering that even countries with weaker GEA control, like Sweden, are reported to have implemented some centralized top-down reforms that have changed their status quo (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020). First, the finding that the bureaucratic structure of the GEA is dualistic raises the possibility that policymakers can design and implement policies that are more enabling than coercive. It is suggested that policymakers invest in promoting enabling procedures that support individual autonomy, thus helping teachers develop their own mental models of ideal schooling (Adler & Borys, 1996; Tsang et al., 2022). An enabling bureaucratic structure is central for carrying out reforms because it allows a shift in reform ownership, thereby supporting reform sustainability on a large scale (Coburn, 2003). Reforms are often experienced by school staff as emotionally strenuous (Zembylas, 2010). Second, policymakers can promote formal school support structures to help promote organizational support as a common practice in education. Institutionalized support structures such as mentoring, development programs, and work-family support programs can help make organizational support part of work practices (Ballout, 2007). Such structures can help ensure that staff are more effective both in times of routine and crisis. Third, the findings illustrate the part that school-level support plays in mitigating and overcoming broad negative systemic influences. This is a call for acting principals to promote organizational support of employees, making them feel that their contribution is valuable and that the principals care about their wellbeing (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This can include encouraging open communication, fostering a positive school culture, and promoting collaboration and teamwork among the staff. By doing so, school leaders can create a more supportive work environment that benefits both staff and students (Bogler & Nir, 2012).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by The Open University of Israel's Research Fund.

Appendix

Appendix.

During the pandemic…

Coercive bureaucracy of the Ministry

1. Ministry red tape was a problem.

2. The administrative hierarchy of the Ministry obstructed student achievement.

3. Ministry administrative rules were used to punish teachers.

4. The administrative hierarchy of the Ministry obstructed innovation.

5. Administrative ministry rules were substituted for professional judgement.

6. The authority of the Ministry was used to undermine teachers.

Enabling bureaucracy of the Ministry

1. Administrative ministry rules enabled authentic communication between the field and the Ministry.

2. The administrative hierarchy of the Ministry enabled teachers to do their job.

3. Administrative ministry rules helped rather than hindered.

4. The administrative hierarchy of the Ministry facilitated the mission of this school.

5. Administrative ministry rules provided guides to solutions rather than rigid procedures.

6. The leaders of the Ministry used their authority to enable teachers to do their job.